This article describes procedures recently employed for the quantitative synthesis of single-subject research literature in special education. First, the need for objective, systematic review procedures is discussed. Second, previous approaches for quantitative evaluation of outcomes of single-case research designs are reviewed. Third, procedures employed by the present authors are outlined using examples from recent synthesis efforts. Finally, implications for future reviews of single-subject research are described.

Thirty-two qualitative investigations of co-teaching in inclusive classrooms were included in a metasynthesis employing qualitative research integration techniques. It was concluded that co-teachers generally supported co-teaching, although a number of important needs were identified, including planning time, student skill level, and training; many of these needs were linked to administrative support. The dominant co-teaching role was found to be “one teach, one assist,” in classrooms characterized by traditional instruction, even though this method is not highly recommended in the literature. The special education teacher was often observed to play a subordinate role. Techniques often recommended for special education teachers, such as peer mediation, strategy instruction, mnemonics, and training of study skills, self-advocacy skills, and self-monitoring, were infrequently observed.

Twenty-eight investigations were identified in which general education teachers were surveyed regarding their perceptions of including students with disabilities in their classes. Research synthesis procedures were employed to summarize responses and examine the consistency of responses across time, geographical location, and item type. Overall, we found that about two thirds of general classroom teachers supported the concept of mainstreaming/inclusion. A smaller majority were willing to include students with disabilities in their own classes, but responses appeared to vary according to disabling condition and implicit obligations on the teacher. Although about half or more of the teachers felt that mainstreaming/inclusion could provide some benefits, only one third or less of teachers believed they had sufficient time, skills, training or resources necessary for mainstreaming/inclusion. Reported attitudes did not appear to covary with either geographical region or time of publication. Implications for policy and practice are provided.

In this article, literature concerning the quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) of single subject research literature is reviewed. First, the general rationale for such an approach is discussed. Next, procedures for synthesizing single-subject literature are described, followed by comments and critiques of those procedures. Finally, a review is presented of the results of applications of those procedures. The authors suggest that procedures based on percentage of nonoverlapping data (PND) between baseline and treatment are justifiable, meaningful, and--across nine applications--have produced results that are highly meaningful and faithful to the original research reports.

This article presents recent findings from several long-term qualitative investigations of co-teaching in science and social studies content-area classes, in which collaborating teachers and students with and without disabilities were observed and interviewed regarding effective practices and challenges associated with inclusion. In some sites, collaborating teachers were provided with research-based effective strategies and materials for including students with disabilities in specific activities. Results were equivocal in that in some cases, collaboration was extremely effective and conducive for promoting success for students with disabilities in inclusive classes. In others, challenges remained that presented barriers for successful collaboration and inclusion for students with disabilities. Important mediating variables were identified as academic content knowledge, high-stakes testing, and co-teacher compatibility. Findings are discussed with respect to both successes and remaining challenges.

No abstract

This investigation compared quantitative outcomes associated with classwide peer tutoring using differentiated hands-on activities vs. teacher-directed instruction for students with mild disabilities in inclusive 8th-grade science classes. Thirteen classes of 213 students (109 males; 104 females), of whom 44 were classified with disabilities, participated in 12-week sessions in a randomized field trial design. Experimental classes received units of differentiated, peer-mediated, hands-on instruction, while control classes received traditional science instruction. Results indicate that collaborative hands-on activities statistically facilitate learning of middle school science content on posttests and on state high-stakes tests for all students and that students enjoyed using the activities. Implications for practice indicate use of supplemental peer mediated hands-on activities may provide necessary review and practice for students with disabilities. Future research would help uncover additional critical instructional variables.

Forty-five middle-school students with learning disabilities were randomly assigned to one of three reading-comprehension training conditions: (a) summarization training, (b) summarization training with a self-monitoring component, or (c) traditional instruction. All students were interviewed before and after training regarding the strategies they typically employ during reading comprehension; during one training session, "think aloud" protocols were collected. Results indicated that students with learning disabilities trained in summarization procedures performed statistically higher on all dependent measures. In addition, on some transfer measures, students who were trained in the monitoring component statistically outperformed those with only the summarization training.